THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Manacker #1943
As my reply to Peters continued misrepresentation of my comments will take some time to craft I thought I would deal with yours first. ‘Scientists’ is a very much overused word in the context of the IPCC reports. The number of climate experts are small and the overall process is divided into three working groups of which the first contains the scientists-they look at the causes. The other two working groups are dealing with effects and mitigation which includes oxfam and greenpeace personnel, engineers and insurance assessors. There were 44 scientists who wrote the crucial chapter in WG1 in assessment four that gets to the heart of the science. Of those 17 commonly write papers together. The ‘2500 scientists’ don’t exist in the sense they are being portayed, which is not to say they are not perfectly competent in their field, but that field isnt always climate change. Surely the make up of the IPCC has been discussed here in detail before? If not I can post some factual (ie real) information.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “I’m not saying that climate sceptics are much different from the rest of the population in that respect. But you do have to wonder about the mentality of someone who can decide that every major world scientific body has got it all wrong on the basis of what they have read on some right-wing contrarian web site.”
Let’s analyze what you just wrote.
By “climate skeptics” I presume you do not mean individuals that are skeptical of climate, per se, but actually you mean those that are skeptical of the premise that AGW is a significant threat to our planet, against which we must “mitigate” to avoid disastrous consequences. You would do well to refrain from using the silly label “climate skeptic” and use the term “disastrous AGW skeptic” instead, since this is a more accurate description. These skeptics (or individuals who are rationally skeptical of any “generally accepted” hypothesis, unless it has been validated by physical observations) are, indeed, different from the “rest of the population” who tend to swallow without question what is fed to them by the media, by TV commercials, by Hadley (or NSIDC) “press releases”, etc. The difference is that they think for themselves rather than blindly accepting what they are told represents the “consensus of a vast majority of the world’s scientists”. They dig out the raw data where possible and make up their own minds rather than having someone (who may have an axe to grind one way or another) “interpret” the data for them and spoon-feed them a pre-cooked conclusion. So I disagree with this part of your statement. Rational skeptics are basically different from the rest of the population. They are not more or less intelligent or more or less technically or scientifically qualified, but they have a different way of thinking.
The second part, “you do have to wonder about the mentality of someone who can decide that every major world scientific body has got it all wrong”. The “consensus” claim is a hoax, Peter. There are many highly qualified scientists that do not agree that AGW is a significant threat to humanity or our planet, which needs to be addressed through “mitigation” actions (i.e. costly carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes), which will not change our climate one iota. These scientists are well known. Many “scientific bodies” in the world are managed by scientists turned administrators/politicians; these can be expected to vote for “politically correct” opinions, even if the science supporting them is shaky. Then there is the all-important “money trail”. Billions of dollars of research grants are being handed out by politicians and bureaucrats who have the political agenda of getting approval for the carbon taxes, which will give them obscene amounts of taxpayer money to shuffle around. They demand “agenda-driven science” to support and sell their political agenda. They even sell to the gullible public the hoax that there is an overwhelming “consensus” in the scientific community that AGW is a significant threat to humanity or our planet. The rational skeptic questions this claim and checks it out, the more naïve individual accepts it at face value because he/she has been told so.
Finally you suggest that skeptics rely “on the basis of what they have read on some right-wing contrarian web site”. This is also totally false. The rational skeptic does not swallow garbage that is posted either on “contrarian” web sites or on the pro-AGW sites. He checks the source of posted information, going back to the raw data and actual physical observations (rather than computer model projections) wherever possible. Sites like that of Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre are certainly not what you describe as “right-wing contrarian web sites”. They provide a good balance for all the ballyhoo that’s out there in the media, etc. in support of AGW.
So, Peter, I can see that you have a basic problem understanding the mentality of individuals who are rational skeptical of the disastrous AGW hypothesis. You suspect (based on earlier posts) that all skeptics are by definition opinionated “right wingers”, without even trying to find out how a rational skeptic really thinks.
A pity for you, Peter, because it makes it very difficult for you to debate with them if you do not understand them.
Regards,
Max
There is a new post about strange happenings at the BBC here.
Peter
Following on from what Max has just said, it really would be interesting hear why you think Climate Audit is a right wing site.
Peter
I will be returning to your misrepresentation of my comments on the laws of thermodynamics in due course, but first I would like to obsereve that you do seem to have a rather quaint and stereotyped view of a sceptic. All the genuine sceptics I know have reached that position because they have informed themselves on the subject and are intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.
Manacker nicely deconstructed one of your extraordinary comments in #1952
‘I’m not saying that climate sceptics are much different from the rest of the population in that respect. But you do have to wonder about the mentality of someone who can decide that every major world scientific body has got it all wrong on the basis of what they have read on some right-wing contrarian web site.”
Let us make an analogy with the current financial crisis. You are an intelligent man. No doubt therefore, like me, (and millions of others) you watched in dismay as the American deficit ballooned out of control 10 years or more ago and may have watched the British situation deteriorate badly over the last seven. You will gave seen the increasingly imaginative attempts of Governments and financial institutions around the world to persuade us that they were creating genuine prosperity by their ever wilder excesses centred round ludicrous financial instruments, govt debt, personal debt, overpriced stock markets. No doubt we both shook our head at the lunacy of Icelandic banks racking up debts more than 8 times greater than their country’s GDP. As this car crash was waiting to happen we were being told that all was well by Govts and financial institutions stuffed full of the brightest and best brains, who were modellers, analysts and mathematicians. Main cheerleader was Alan Greenspan who told us that he had all the answers and we were to follow him to a prosperous new world whilst at the same time cutting interest rates to unsustainable levels to keep the whole house of cards intact.
I knew-and I assume you did- that boom and bust couldn’t be abolished and a giant bubble was building up. If we could –although it probably wasn’t practical- we would have sold our house, liquidated our shares, protected our pension pots and put the money in a safe place far away from the madness and waited for the bang. We knew it was all going to end in tears as 2 plus 2 has never equalled five no matter the industry, and no matter how brilliant the people telling us that it did
So Tony B -and I assume Peter Martin- thought that they knew better than the best brains in Governments and in millions of financial institutions around the world.
Unfortunately we –and millions like us-were right. So being an intelligent person you were a sceptic- I assume- and didn’t believe the mainstream theory and the ‘overwhelming evidence’. So let’s paraphrase your comment that Manacker highlighted;
“You do have to wonder about the mentality of someone who can decide that every major world financial body and government has got it all wrong on the basis of what they have read on some right-wing contrarian web site.”
The analogy is of course transparent. Substitute the word ‘financial’ for ‘climate change’ and Greenspan for Hansen. The climate change industry is represented by a far smaller number of institutions and individuals than world govts and financial bodies, yet we had the temerity to question their great wisdom. As a sceptic- instead of being in the mainstream- did you suddenly lose the power of logical thought? Acquire anti social habits? Subscribe to unpleasant contrarian web sites? No of course not, you merely took decisions based on information you had researched over many years and behaved rationally. Please believe that others can do likewise with AGW.
Tony Brown
The British and Australian comedians were good. I felt I owed you guys a laugh. These clips reminded me very much of the typical Global Warming news stories.
Pete,
This is how the sane world really views the Alarmists……..
Sources Warn Miley Cyrus Will Be Depleted by 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOgj2etJs3Y
Meteorologists Predict Worst Autumn Ever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siM6CPniUgU
Tony B,
All I know about your views on the laws of thermodynamics is that you feel they disprove AGW theory.
If you can enlighten us further on your views, stating how exactly you think they do this then maybe I’ll be able to misrepresent them.
:-)
But seriously, I doubt that will be necessary. Whatever flaws there may be in AGW theory, incompatibility with known laws won’t be one of them.
Seems the commitment to “saving the planet” fades when the rubber meets the road.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7847631
Hi Brute,
You just have to admire the way the French play the EU game.
First, they have one of the lowest CO2 emission rates in the EU, because of all their nuclear power plants, a good number of which were built just across the Rhine from (and upwind of) Germany, where the “greens” pushed through a mandate to phase out nuclear power [this was before Chernobyl-hysteria had been replaced with current craze, AGW-hysteria].
No wonder they are balking at “cutting back”!
Meanwhile, the Germans are building giant coal-fired plants (in Poland, mind you) with long-term power supply guarantees.
And the Poles are saying “no way” to mandatory cutbacks.
European Union, indeed.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I don’t know why the French would participate at all. As you’ve written, they’re already “green”. It seems that the Greens want to force the French to participate simply to raid the French economy, not to lower emissions.
The rest of the EU has shown their hand; these initiatives aren’t about lowering emissions, it’s about stealing money.
Tony B,
I didn’t mean to interrupt your dialogue with Peter Martin; however, we’ve been at this for close to a year now and Peter doesn’t answer questions that invalidate his religious belief of “impending environmental doom” due to progress and the “evils of capitalism”. Most times, we pose a question and when he can’t make up a good excuse to refute the evidence he changes the topic. My humble opinion is that you’re beating a dead horse sparring with him. He won’t answer your queries.
I’ve also noticed a trend lately in that “Global Warming” and “green initiatives” are falling by the wayside like dominos due to economic concerns. I would have thought that a cold winter would have been the final nail in the coffin for the global warming charade; but economic concerns have overshadowed any talk of carbon trading and carbon taxes. Businesses and governments world wide are abandoning pie in the sky, Utopian fantasies about “saving the planet” and coming to the realization that they simply cannot afford to throw money down the rat hole that is environmentalism. I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me before…..the economic realities are like a slap in the face or a bucket of ice water to the global warming crowd. People are scrambling to rearrange their budgets and cutting out the “feel good” solutions that nuts like Gore have been selling.
Reality is a mother…..the altruistic environmental concerns are being cast aside and companies/governments are tightening their belts……the “commitment” to environmentalism seems to have been only skin deep.
Brute#1961
I know the complete futility of the exercise but baiting us sceptics keeps Peter young! Look on this positively, when hes been doing this for another twenty years and sees nothing untoward has happened he might actually start listening to the answers! Got to be worth waiting for.
TonyB
What Brute means is that I don’t answer the questions in the way that he would like them answered.
On the topic of unanswered questions: How are you going with the one about thermodynamics?
Some simple yes/no answers for Brute.
Managed Capitalism? Yes
Laisser-faire Capitalism? No
Nationalised Industries? Yes (Even George Bush agrees with me on that one now!)
Nationalised Industries with no worker democracy? No
Here it comes…..earliest snowfall since 1898 for these areas. CO2 continues to rise, the Sun is weak, and here comes the cold……..
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/10/11/news/local/18-winter.txt
TonyN,
I guess you picked out ClimateAudit, run by Steve McIntyre, as this is probably one of the least overtly political of the denialist websites. He doesn’t make the mistake of sounding quite as rabid as this for example:
http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/category/global-warming/
There is a ‘no politics rule’ on the feedback threads, so he is obviously aware that it is much better, especially with his non-American readership, to keep his supporters’ views, and maybe his own too, well suppressed. Nevertheless he can’t resist the odd pop at Al Gore for example so we can have our suspicions. He’s from the mining industry which has struggled with its environmentalist credentials at times, but he seems to be keeping his political cards very close to his chest. His main claim to fame is due to his terrier like approach to the data used by NASA and Mann with his hockey stick. Although contrarians claim that he has ‘debunked’ the hockey stick, the ‘consensus’ view is that he’s nit-picked over it all and forced a few small inconsequential changes to be made. His claimed motivation is one of ‘scientific curiosity’. There is nothing wrong with that of course and it is good that he has taken the trouble to check everything out so thoroughly. No-one is infallible, corrections do have to be made from time to time. For instance, the Spencer and Christie team at the University of Alabama recently had to correct their statistical satellite record. Steve Macintyre’s skills could well have been utilised on this too, but his scientific curiosity was unfortunately curiously absent in this case. So I would just ask the question, if he is motivated purely by curiosity, of why he does seem to favour one side over the other?
His partner Ross McKitrick is much less shy of the political aspect. He is a ‘Senior Fellow’ of the so called Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market right wing ‘think tank’.
Good morning Peter.
You said I am talking ‘crap’ and to support this you are being highly selective with parts of my quotes-I have filled in the missing parts. Please re read what I actually said in its context rather than what you thought I wrote, taken out of context to support your position. Your fragments of my comments are in italics the remainder of my quote in bold
Quote 1) “In return I have asked for you to demonstrate how 2+2=5. This is at the heart of the co2 hypotheses and violates known laws by arriving at an answer ……..” (The continuation said “that isn’t possible without some secret added factor that the IPCC scientists seem reluctant to divulge.
Post 1903 Quote 2 Was prefixed by; The argument that man made co2 will be responsible for a rise of 3-5 degrees C does not bear scrutiny until the warmists can come up with a “……coherent theory that explains how the law of thermodynamics has suddenly changed.”
You also made other comments;
Quote 3. Tony B’s claim that it breaks several “known laws”, See quote 1) above. I never said such a thing in the context you are claiming. It is the ‘secret added factor’ that is needed in order to make sense of everything
Quote 4 concerning getting my views from ‘right-wing contrarian web sites’. I do not read such web sites, they worry me as much as the nonsense from fervent environmentalists. Both take indefensible positions and shout without listening. I thought ‘The Great global warming swindle’ as big a fraud as ‘An inconvenient truth’
Quote 5, you said; ‘I haven’t read all your links properly. Just had a quick look.’ That’s the trouble isn’t it; you just seem to read what supports your preconceived view. I have repeated part of 1934 below, as you obviously did not have time to read it or you would not have made the comment you subsequently did.
Quote 6 you said “All I know about your views on the laws of thermodynamics is that you feel they disprove AGW theory.”
Please tell me where I have said that?
What I have actually said- which surely conforms to the laws- was in # 1896
“The best co2 explanation I have seen blames humans for the majority of co2 increases since the industrial age (probably true) but is unable to link co2 to temperature increase. This author, and miskolczi referenced above calculates 0.50C as the sum total due to doubling of co2- not the 3 to 5 degrees C calculated by the IPCC. This is so close to my previous calculation of 0.60 I am happy to accept this as probably factual. However the log co2 effect confirms this small rise is about as much we will get, no matter what we now do with co2 emissions. This rise seems trivial and well within natural variability and ‘noise.’
How does that suggest new laws or the trashing of existing ones?
I suggest you re re-read the long series of attempts I made to place my long explanatory post 1896 which resulted eventually in my apology in 1921 for multiple postings as fragments and the whole post had by then turned up several times all over the place.
I assume you posted #1908 in response to my #1903 (as 1896 had not appeared) ‘that your hackles rise….’
In your post 1912 you commented that ‘my spam filter wasn’t so dumb after all,’ so it was obvious it still hadn’t turned up by then. I suspect the first time you saw it was in #1916 by which time, through using fragments of out of context comments, you decided to form a view of my position that was inaccurate.
Max in #1925 gave a very good appraisal of my post and agreed with it, so either he was also ignoring the laws of thermodynamics or-more likely-had just read my post correctly.
To be as plain as I can without further opportunity of being misunderstood, it is quite impossible to break the second law of thermodynamics so the IPCC range of figures can not be supported. To arrive at the figures of up to 4.5 degrees the IPCC must therefore add in a great variety of external and unproven influences which are then proclaimed as factual when they are nothing of the sort. They are experimental data from a relatively new science. This is one reason the range of estimates of temperature effects is so wide.
As I have posted earlier, the best estimates of the co2 relationship to temperature rise I have seen are 0.50C. I say ‘best’ because at least it is a transparent published figure that anyone can look at and pull apart if they wish- and the calculations behind it are clearly set out. The IPCC reference a figure far in excess of this. How do you get from 0.50 to say 4.5? If the same calculations are being used why should there be such a disparity between the lowest and highest estimate unless there were great uncertainties?
As we are both now- I hope- agreed that you can’t break the laws, it follows that the IPCC figures must be open to debate-not set in stone. Consequently this extract from wikipedia then becomes relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)”
So the explanation for the conundrum in the disparity between the figures being produced by the IPCC and what we know they should be, is that observations from the real world simply do not match the theories and figures of experimentalists that are being held up as the product of settled science. I have posted numerous factual links pointing this out-whose sources are not from right wing contrarian web sites.
If you look at the IPCC links I posted earlier they themselves are not confident the theories and figures or predictions are correct and are uncertain of the predictability of the various elements that comprise real world climate These are some of the fourth assessment author’s responses to questionnaires on the process. They can be found on
http://climatesci.org/2008/10/02/an-essay-the-ipcc-report-what-the-lead-authors-really-think/
It is worth reading the full story so you can see these are not taken out of context.
‘Serious inadequacies in climate change prediction that are of real concern
• The rush to emphasize regional climate does not have a scientifically sound basis.
• Prioritize the models so that weaker ones do not confuse/dilute the signals.
• Until and unless major oscillations in the Earth System (El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) etc.) can be predicted to the extent that they are predictable, regional climate is not a well defined problem. It may never be. If that is the case then we should say so. It is not just the forecast but the confidence and uncertainty that are just as much a key.
• Climate models need to be exercised for weather prediction; there are necessary but not sufficient things that can best be tested in this framework, which is just beginning to be exploited.
• Energy budget is really worrisome; we should have had 20 years of ERBE [Earth Radiation Budget Experiment] type data by now- this would have told us about cloud feedback and climate sensitivity. I’m worried that we’ll never have a reliable long-term measurement. This combined with accurate ocean heat uptake data would really help constrain the big-picture climate change outcome, and then we can work on the details.
• [Analyse] the response of models to a single transient 20th century forcing construction. The factors leading to the spread in the responses of models over the 20th century can then be better ascertained, with forcing separated out thus from the mix of the uncertainty factors. The Fourth Assessment Report missed doing this owing essentially to the timelines that were arranged.
• Adding complexity to models, when some basic elements are not working right (e.g. the hydrological cycle) is not sound science. A hierarchy of models can help in this regard.
Climate change research topics identified for immediate action
• Thorough understanding of the physics and dynamics of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, with a view to predicting sea level rise within 20% for a specified change in climate over the ice sheets.
• Simulation of the main modes of variability in each of the main oceans (e.g. ENSO and PDO in the Pacific, thermohaline circulation (THC), meridional overturning circulation (MOC) and AMO in the Atlantic, and monsoons in the Indian Ocean) is essential. Replicating relative changes over the past 50 years is essential and is an initial value problem for the oceans.
• Re-evaluation of the projections for sea-level rise, aiming for a consensus rather than a lot of publications criticizing the Fourth Assessment Report.
• Establishing the likelihood of Amazon die-back – carbon dioxide source instead of sink.
• Links between land use/cover change and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Bringing the carbon cycle models to a level comparable with the physical climate change models and fully incorporating them.
• Reducing climate sensitivity.
• Tackling the resolution problem properly (not easy!)“.
The highlighted reference to carbon is mine not the IPCC. I also higlighted the earlier refernces to oscillations which are at the heart of the drivers of our climate. Hydrology is also not understood (see my link to miskolczi re water vapour who seems to understand it better-an important area as water vapour in its various forms is a far more prevalent greenhouse gas than co2)
It is my experience that when writing big reports critical comments tend to be watered down. Even if they havent been it can be clearly seen that the process and science are full of uncertainties-I also cited a reference earlier on sea level changes, where the word uncertainty was used 8 times in a 14 line abstract! Why do you think this is settled science when even those involved in it don’t believe that?
Can you now see where we are coming from when we ask someone to provide the answer to 2+2=5? Doubling Co2 does not raise temperature by up to 4.5 degrees. To achieve the range of figures being promoted many other aspects of the climate that are very imprefctly undestood are being factored in and apparently exagerated.
This document is quite long enough so I will hold other factual references to another time else the post may end up being sent piecemeal allowing misunderstanding of its comments. (there should be a smiley emoticon here Peter. Perhaps TonyN could introduce them and include an irony one as well)
Could I ask that you now you have read my comments in their proper context that you stop misrepresenting what I say and answer the many factual links I have posted. Or perhaps you might like to comment on the authors comments as posted immediately above?
TonyB
In his always excellent “Economic Agenda” in the Sunday Telegraph today Liam Halligan comments on the “Myth that the West can get out of this [global economic] crisis alone”. Re the current G7 meeting, he notes that “the most important players aren’t there”, pointing out that “the G7 has only 20 per cent of the world’s currency reserves. Four emerging markets – Brazil, Russia, India and China – account for 40 per cent.” As I have noted many times before, this is a precise parallel with those countries who are demanding action on GHG emissions (if doing little about it) and those that are barely paying even lip-service to the issue.
Hi Peter,
You opined (1965) to TonyB, “I guess you picked out ClimateAudit, run by Steve McIntyre, as this is probably one of the least overtly political of the denialist websites. He doesn’t make the mistake of sounding quite as rabid as this for example [American Conservative Daily].”
Sorry, Peter, by labeling ClimateAudit “the least overtly political of the denialist websites” you are off the mark. Rather than a “denialist website” CA is generally considered to be one of the better sources providing an unbiased assessment of the issues surrounding the ongoing scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming. The site provides a healthy skepticism of the so-called “consensus view”, offering an independent audit or verification of the science, which underlies the claims of AGW.
Below is a direct quote from the usually AGW-friendly Wikipedia: “Climate Audit is a blog run by Stephen McIntyre devoted to auditing the statistical methods and data used in historical reconstructions of past climate, especially multiproxy reconstructions such as the 1998 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (“MBH98”), which was prominently featured in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report.
McIntyre became interested in these issues after advocates of the Kyoto Protocal used the Hockey Stick Graph from MBH98 in ways that he found similar to Bre-X and other stock frauds, leading him to try to audit the MBH98 data and analysis. He launched the blog in January 2005 just before Geophysical Research Letters published a paper by McIntyre and Ross McKitrick critiquing MBH98. The blog is largely concerned with McIntyre’s efforts to audit current climate publications. It supports comments, but topics not related to auditing results in climate science are generally discouraged.
The ClimateAudit blog was credited with spurring two hearings on the Hockey Stick Graph, open documentation and the reliability of peer review in government-funded science research by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee in 2006 at which Stephen McIntyre testified. Of the role of the Climate Audit blog in inspiring the hearings, the Prometheus blog of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research of the University of Colorado at Boulder said, referring to ClimateAudit, “[McIntyre and McKitrick] also have provided a case study in the power of blogs in today’s worlds of science and politics”.Climate Audit has been highlighted by the press including The Wall Street Journal and United Press International and was co-winner of the 2007 Best Science Blog award.”
For a good summary of the contribution made by McIntyre and CA see:
http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/climate-audit-wins/
To McIntyre you wrote, “ His claim to fame is due to his terrier like approach to the data used by NASA and Mann with his hockey stick. Although contrarians claim that he has ‘debunked’ the hockey stick, the ‘consensus’ view is that he’s nit-picked over it all and forced a few small inconsequential changes to be made.”
Wow! Talk about “re-writing history” to make it “fit” your own opinions! For shame, Peter! The National Academy of Sciences considered the matter of the validity of the “hockey stick” On June 22, 2006, the Academy released a pre-publication version of its report Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. This report confirmed Mann’s assertion that temperatures were indeed colder during the Little Ice Age than during the last few decades of the 20th century. The report showed less confidence in Mann’s assertions regarding individual decades or years particularly to changes prior to about A.D. 1600, due to the greater uncertainty at that level of precision.
The report concluded, ” Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.”
The errors in the Mann et al. “hockey stick” were made very clear by a report to the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce by an independent committee led by Dr. Edward Wegman, renowned expert on statistical analyses, professor at George Mason University and chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. The report focused on the statistical analysis used in the Mann paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al and other members of the paleoclimate community. Findings presented in this report (commonly known as the “Wegman Report”) at a hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations:
“Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.”
Supporter of the “hockey stick” have used the argument that, while there may have been errors in the methodology used by Mann et al., the conclusions reached were still correct.
As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.”
Yes, Peter, the Mann “hockey stick” was thoroughly debunked by Mc+Mc as later acknowledged by the National Academy of Sciences and confirmed by Wegman. True, Gavin Schmidt has not yet gotten the word on this and a few other AGW die-hards, like Joe Romm and Tamino, still believe in its validity, but it is generally accepted that it was based on “bad science” and its conclusions were faulty. Fortunately there have been subsequent reports (not relying on bristlecone pine ring data) plus a large amount of historical data from all over the civilized world at the time that have confirmed a global Medieval Warm Period that was generally warmer than today.
The Mann hockey stick has died an inglorious death as a piece of “Bad Science”. It has been buried. Let it “Rest in Peace”, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max #1968
Excellent post. I would add that it is well worth reading DR Wegmans 32 page document in full, as it says much more about the cosy relationship of the various researchers within the IPCC and how they support each others finding and often use each others data, so no surprise they come up with their own consensus.
Also worth looking out for is David Hollands deconstruction of the hockey stick which I have found has accessible enough wording which even the most dedicated warmist can’t misconstrue.
Even the IPCC dropped the Hockey stick from their 2007 assessment. Mann compiled it a year after getting his phd as an honest first attempt to put the story together as he saw it. I guess he didnt expect it to achieve such world wide fame as he might have researched it a bit more. I suspect he found it difficult to subsequently admit he could be wrong. Its a shame he didn’t talk about his minimisation of the MWP period to Al Gore, who five years earlier had provided ample evidence of this warming epoch in his 1992 book “Earth in the balance.”
Incidentally I never read these ‘right wing contrarian web sites’ that Peter seems so interested in bringing to our attention.
Does anyone else here?
TonyB
ANYTHING that is contrary to the zombie like adherence to the Anthropomorphic Global Warming doctrine is considered heresy and “Right Wing” to the likes of the AGW faithful.
As I’ve written before; these people have closed their minds long ago and follow in lockstep with the groupthink scripture of David Suzuki, Joe Romm, Rachel Carlson, James Hansen and Al Gore et al. Take a close look at how these people conduct(ed) their personal lives and you’ll readily find out that they don’t practice what they preach. Every last one is the modern day equivalent of a snake-oil salesman. Suzuki owns a mansion that burns more juice than all of our houses put together. Gore has accumulated more frequent flyer in his private jets than most commercial airline pilots.
Evidence be damned….to the AGW Alarmist, the ends justify the means. Sycophants to the end, they will never question the sacred doctrine or prophesies of their Saints.
(See Cult: [kuhlt] An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers)
Tony B,
You say “To be as plain as I can without further opportunity of being misunderstood, it is quite impossible to break the second law of thermodynamics….”
Agreed.
“…so the IPCC range of figures can not be supported. To arrive at the figures of up to 4.5 degrees the IPCC must therefore add in a great variety of external and unproven influences which are then proclaimed as factual when they are nothing of the sort.”
The IPCC range is 1.5 deg C to 4.5deg C for the increase in atmospheric temperature due to a doubling of CO2 levels. No secret factors or influences are involved. Apart from CO2 everything else is kept constant for the purposes of the calculation.
Why cannot the IPCC figures be supported on thermodynamic considerations? Please explain.
I am really doing my best to not misrepresent what you are saying. However, if you make this silly sort of claim without being able to give any reasons, if you can’t explain why, if the best you can do is waffle vaguely about entropy, and endlessly repeating that 2+2 do not make 5, then there is no doubt about it at all. You are talking crap.
Max,
Now that it is OK to link to Wiki again, I should direct you to read the whole account of the ‘hockey stick’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy.
The controversy rages on. Rather than RIP, it looks like the hockey stick has come back in a newer and more robust form. Prof Mann has published a new paper. Lets see what the CA guys do with this one.
“In a paper on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues published an updated reconstruction of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia.[61] This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study. Similarly to the original study, this work found that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years, and that this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the tree-ring dataset.”
Peter
How can you get such a wide range of answers from asking just one question;
“What is the temperature rise from doubling Co2?”
The answer is 1.5 or it is 4.5. If it is a possible range of answers it is because they are having to take into account a number of factors and influences other than co2. These other factors are debatable and sometimes experimental, as the comments from the people actually carrying out the process showed. You wrote “Apart from CO2 everything else is kept constant for the purposes of the calculation.” So you are saying then that there are other factors and influences apart from just Co2- which is precisely what I have been saying. I am glad you are in agreement with me on that point, I was beginning to worry that you believed thermodynamics was an infinitely elastic concept and you can end up with whatever answer suits your purposes.
Various people have calculated the effect of co2 doubling which have been referenced. This link shows dozens of other attempts to pin it down with estimates ranging from 0.1 to 9.6. http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html
My estimate was 0.60 and that from Miskolczi that I also referenced was 0.5. His study actually showed the calculations. The fact that Hansen is at variance with other scientists demonstrates that they are having to take into account other factors to arrive at an answer and they are not in agreement what these other factors are and how they should be integrated into the equation.
The fact that there is no agreement on the answer to a straightforward question means this aspect of the debate can only go round in circles, because if there was an agreed answer we wouldn’t be having this debate in the first place would we-we’d all be in agreement.
I don’t know why you have such difficulty with the concept of 2+2=5 it is a way of describing doublethink and that you can end up with whatever answer you wish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_%2B_two_%3D_five
I am startled that you do not know of its application to climate change discussions from standard text books to New Scientist articles. It was even mentioned in Joseph Romms column blog on Gristmill when reviewing James Hansen pamphlet ‘target atmospheric Co2’ http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/19/13140/3196
(What are these sceptics up to Peter-they don’t read right wing contrarian rants but they do read Gristmill!)
I have not waffled about entropy, take that up with wikepedia and the famous scientist who formulated it. The quote was highlighted to point out that observational real world data is considered superior to theoretical data. Unless you know different?
Can we please have a sensible dialogue instead of your continually recycling a question where no one as yet knows the actual answer-whether James Hansen or me-and probably not even you Peter-, why not stop sidestepping the original point of the posts and comment on some of the factual links posted on sea level rises or sea temperatures or if you would prefer, the authors criticism of the IPCC process and the uncertainties in the underlying science. Or you could try and resurrect the hockey stick yet again if you wish.
TonyB
Just when you thought it was safe to start talking about the paleontological temperature
record again, the “hockey stick” returns!
{http}://www.desmogblog.com/hockey-stick-rises-again
Thought that the only ‘Hockey stick’ was the work of Mann? Think again!
{http}://www.desmogblog.com/this-is-not-a-hockey-stick
Remove {} to obtain the links.
Re: # 1967, Peter
Max has said it all really in #1968, but why is it that you feel the need to use misrepresentation, innuendo and guilt by association to try and smear Climate Audit?
Does it never occur to you that unless you can find better ‘arguments’ there is no case to be made?